Nuclear energy has been around for many years and is therefore typically less risky of an investment due to the knowledge and reliability that it presents. Nuclear energy is also easier to manage and supply to consumers than most renewable sources of energy. Storage of the energy also presents a problem from renewable energy sources and this leads to difficulty in gathering support. The amount of energy that is produced through a nuclear source is more stable and does not rely on wind or sun; it is not intermittent like renewable sources. It is understood, solid, known, and reliable – all of these things lead to a stronger interest in supporting nuclear projects as opposed to renewable energy projects.
I think the greatest niche opportunities lie in renewable energy storage. We are in dire need of efficient ways to store energy created wind and solar in order to transfer it to the homes and businesses that could use it. If we had better technology for storing this renewable energy, there would be more support financially and overall in utilizing and expanding generation projects from renewable sources. The trick is to not only discover a reliable method for energy storage, but also to make it affordable and accessible.
Yes. I would say your response to why there is less financial support for renewables is short, sweet and correct. I came to the some of the same conclusions although I disagree on stability. I would add “true hypothetical cost”, as bizarre as that sounds, to the equation. Hypothetical as in what might be the true cost after a disaster. Thinking of Fukushima, 3 mile, Chernoble etc…My bottom line on nuclear is “the bottom line”. Nuclear just pays out more per dollar invested……good points….
Permalink: http://sites.psu.edu/engr312/2014/09/09/david-westsmit…ding-the-niche/
Hi Cynthia. I agree with you that an investment in a proven technology like nuclear is typically more attractive than investments in more unknown technologies such as wind or solar PV. However, I’m curious about something. If it is truly the case that investment in a proven technology is attractive, do you have thoughts as to why we haven’t been able to site, license and build more nuclear facilities? Nuclear is a proven base load resource that is a reliable, economical and important part of our nation’s energy mix; yet we haven’t been successful in adding nuclear generation to that mix for nearly 40 years. As you point out, nuclear is not intermittent like wind or solar PV, yet as a society we seem to be focused on developing those resources. Should we turn our attention to even more incentives to first build new nuclear generation and also encourage upgrades to our existing plants? Just curious. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Hi Christine!
You bring up a good question, why hasn’t the US been adding nuclear reactors? I believe that the incident at Three Mile Island and many safety concerns and fears is the general response to that, but in researching this I did find some interesting information. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved new construction for 4 reactors at existing nuclear plants in 2012 for the first time since 1977. So, maybe there will be a change in the nuclear energy industry here in the United States.
Thanks for reading and responding to my post, have a great day.
Cynthia